More Discussions for this daf
1. Shitas Rashi and Tosfos 2. Bracha Al Biur Chametz 3. R. Yose Hagelili
4. The Beer Controversy 5. Rebbi Shimon Machmas Davar Acher
DAF DISCUSSIONS - PESACHIM 28

David Goldman asks:

Hello. Regarding the controversy in the media regarding selling beer before Pesach of a company headed by Simon Bergson. https://forward.com/news/398518/orthodox-rabbis-order-jews-to-stick-to-budweiser-or-skip-beer/?attribution=articles-article-related-1-headline

I thought you'd find this interesting.

Why would a corporation have to sell the beer if it isn't owned by an actual Jew but by a corporate entity?

He as a Jew doesn't personally own the beer himself that he sells, the owner is the non-human legal entity, the corporation.

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, who they would consider seriously, once pointed out that unlike a person, it is possible to lend money to a corporation at interest because it is a separate legal entity and not a Jew.

Plus whatever the corporation sells is wholesale to be owned by other businesses, not to individuals. The individuals buy the beer from new companies who now own the beer.

In medieval times there were no corporate businesses. Property was owned by human beings.

But none of this is a problem today where everything is owned by corporate entities.

David Goldman, USA

The Kollel replies:

The subject of corporate entities is a matter of dispute among the authorities. The Rogatchover Gaon (Tzofnas Pa'ane'ach 184) posits that a bank should not be considered the property of the shareholders but rather an individual entity, and therefore there should not be an issue of Ribis in borrowing from such an entity as Ribis applies only between human beings.

Based on this approach, the company beers should be permitted after Pesach. However, the Minchas Yitzchak (3:1) takes sharp issue with this opinion and maintains that those invested in the company are partners and owners of the company's assets and therefore subject to Bal Yera'eh. The same view is held by Mo'adim u'Zmanim (3:269).

If Jews and Nochrim together were owners of the company, there would be room for leniency, as we would say Yesh Bereirah and consider the Chametz-part as belonging to the Nochrim, if they made an actual transaction and gave the Chametz-part to the Nochrim. This was not done before Pesach, and, anyway, in this case the company may be controlled by a Jew so it would not be applicable.

Yoel Domb

David Goldman asks:

The Minchas Yitzchok would be incorrect because a partnership organization is not the same as a corporation. In a partnership the partners own the assets of company and the partnership is not a legal person, but a corporation is a legal person, and owns the merchandise. The shareholders merely own value in the corporation itself.

The Kollel replies:

Obviously, the Minchas Yitzchok (3:1) was aware of the nature of a corporation and the fact that it is deemed a separate legal entity by secular law but he could not find any source for Halachic recognition of such an entity, and he therefore concluded that even limited ownership could be considered ownership at least as far as owning the Chametz in the corporation is concerned. He brings a proof for this from the obligation to check for Chametz in shuls and Batei Midrash even though they do not belong to any individual, even though they are not partners in the shul itself. He also brings further proofs that Halachah does not recognize corporations as individual entities.

Yoel Domb

David asks:

Thank you. However, I assume that the Minchas Yitzchak was being machmir for some reason, since surely the Rogachover and R. Moshe Feinstein also knew that a corporation organization does not exist in the Talmud. However, this doesn't affect the fact that OWNERSHIP must be identified somehow, and all secular legal entities used in contractual arrangements among Jews involve entities that are not identified in Chazal but follow ownership rules under secular law. Although this must affect halacha as well since in fact the shareholders do not own the merchandise but only shares of value of the corporation itself.

Thus I presume that no heter iska is required according to the Rogachover and R. Moshe Feinstein involving a corporation. If this were not accepted it would involve grave problems for issues of ribis etc. and would suggest that they are literally machshil es harabim!

MDeutsch asks:

I always thought that it was clear halacha-wise that a corporation, such as IBM for example, which is owned by literally millions of shareholders is a separate entity as a corp. However, someone who makes a corp of just one or two people etc, just to take advantage of a certain business structure available in todays times is considered halachically as an individual or shutfus owner(s)

The Kollel replies:

Your original question concerned the Chametz controversy raised by Satmar over the beer of a Jew who had not sold his beer properly before Pesach. Satmar are affiliated with the Edah Charedis which was headed by Rabbi Weiss in the 1980's. It is therefore obvious that they will adopt the more stringent stance of Rabbi Weiss.

The fact that Rabbi Weiss is not willing to accept the logical assumption that shareholders do not own merchandise definitely has ramifications for Ribbis, this may be the reason that the Eidah is presently trying to identify "kosher" companies for investment which do not issue bonds or which have a proper heter iska. Machon Keter (where I am employed as a research fellow) lists on its website (https://www.keter.org.il/) all of the Israeli companies which have a heter iska as well as those which do not desecrate Shabbat.

As for companies with joint gentile and Jewish ownership, there is apparently a leniency even according to Minchas Yitzchak (3:1, based on Maharam Schick Orach Chaim 226, Yoreh Deah 158) as we say Yesh Bereira and presume that the part belonging to the gentile had the Chametz and the Ribbis, although in the case of the beer since the Jewish owner did not sell his Chametz this was a problem.

Yoel Domb